Washington's AI Deepfake Law (SSB 5886) Takes Effect June 11
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 7, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington's Substitute Senate Bill 5886 takes effect on June 11, 2026, expanding the state Personality Rights Act to cover a "forged digital likeness," an AI-generated audio or video clone of a real person that is indistinguishable from the genuine version. People depicted in such forgeries can sue for damages, including noneconomic harm, under RCW 63.60.
Information last verified on June 7, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Washington Substitute Senate Bill 5886 and the changes it makes to RCW 63.60. It does not state the deepfake, publicity, or recording law of any other state, and it does not address federal criminal deepfake statutes except for context. For Washington's consent rules on recording conversations, see Washington recording laws.
What Happened
Governor Bob Ferguson signed SSB 5886 on March 16, 2026, and the law takes effect June 11, 2026 as Chapter 69 of the 2026 Laws of Washington. The bill amends the Washington Personality Rights Act, RCW 63.60, which already protects a person's name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness from unauthorized commercial use. SSB 5886 adds a new protected category for the age of generative artificial intelligence: the forged digital likeness.
The legislature passed the measure with broad bipartisan support, 47 to 0 in the Senate and 85 to 9 in the House. The change responds to the rapid spread of tools that can clone a real person's face or voice convincingly, from audio that mimics a specific speaker to video that places someone in events that never happened. By writing those forgeries into an existing property-rights statute rather than a new criminal code, Washington gives the depicted person a civil claim against whoever created or used the forged likeness.
What the Law Actually Says
A forged digital likeness, as the Act defines it, is a visual representation or audio recording that has been digitally created, adapted, altered, or modified to be indistinguishable from genuine material, that misrepresents the appearance, speech, or conduct of an individual, and that is likely to deceive a reasonable person into believing it is genuine. The definition covers both persistent recordings and representations transmitted in real time, which is what brings live voice changers and real-time AI video into its scope.
The Act amends several sections of RCW 63.60, including the definitions and the remedies provisions. It increases the civil penalty for infringement to $3,000 and provides that when the infringement involves a forged digital likeness of a living or deceased person, the infringer is liable for noneconomic damages, meaning reputational and emotional harm, regardless of whether the infringement produced any profit. Washington also continues to treat these personality rights as property rights that can be assigned or licensed and that survive the individual's death.
The statute keeps the broad expressive carve-outs that have long limited personality-rights claims. It exempts matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, and it separately exempts media outlets and their employees from liability for content they publish or broadcast, unless the outlet used that content to promote the medium itself. Those exemptions are meant to keep the law on the constitutional side of the First Amendment by protecting commentary, journalism, satire, and similar uses.
How It Fits the Broader Deepfake Landscape
Washington is part of a fast-moving wave of state and federal responses to AI-generated likenesses. Tennessee led with the ELVIS Act in 2024, which expanded that state's right of publicity to cover unauthorized AI use of a person's voice. At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, enacted in 2025, criminalizes nonconsensual intimate images, including deepfakes, and requires covered platforms to remove flagged material within 48 hours. A broader federal proposal, the NO FAKES Act, would create a nationwide digital-replica right but has not passed.
SSB 5886 differs from those measures in a way that matters for recording and surveillance. It is a civil property-rights law available to ordinary people, not just performers or public figures, and its reach into real-time transmissions connects directly to live-recording scenarios. Washington is an all-party consent state for recording private conversations under , and the new likeness rules add a separate layer of exposure when a recording is not merely captured but synthetically altered or cloned. For how AI tools intersect with meeting consent, see Washington AI meeting recording laws.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The notable move in SSB 5886 is extending personality protection beyond the commercial and celebrity context that publicity law historically served. By allowing noneconomic damages without proof of profit, Washington recognizes that the harm from a convincing forgery is often reputational and emotional rather than financial, and that the people most exposed to AI voice and video cloning are not necessarily famous. That reframing tracks how the technology is actually being misused, in harassment, fraud, and impersonation aimed at private individuals.
The real-time clause is the other detail worth watching. Most likeness and deepfake statutes were drafted around stored files that can be posted and taken down, but SSB 5886 reaches representations transmitted live. As AI voice changers and synthetic video become usable in real-time calls and streams, a law that already covers live transmission is positioned for disputes that purely file-based statutes may not reach. How courts read the "indistinguishable from genuine" standard and the public-interest exemptions will determine how far the law actually stretches, and those questions will be settled case by case.
How This Affects You
For people in Washington, the practical effect is a new civil avenue when someone creates or spreads a convincing AI clone of their voice or image. The law is general, and whether any particular forgery is actionable depends on the facts, including whether an exemption for newsworthy or other protected expression applies. This article does not assess any specific situation.
Creators, marketers, and platforms operating in Washington should be aware that the law treats a forged digital likeness as an infringement of property rights with statutory and noneconomic damages attached, and that the statute's media exemption protects an outlet from liability for content it publishes or broadcasts only if the outlet did not use that content to promote itself. Anyone weighing how the law applies to their work or their case should consult a lawyer licensed in Washington. For related coverage, see our reporting on Meta smart glasses privacy concerns and the federal DEFIANCE Act for deepfake victims.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It addresses Washington Substitute Senate Bill 5886 and RCW 63.60, and reflects sources verified on June 7, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
The sources for this article are listed in the citations panel and include the Final Bill Report and enrolled text of SSB 5886, RCW 63.60, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act.
Related articles
- Washington recording laws
- Washington AI meeting recording laws
- Meta smart glasses privacy concerns
- The federal DEFIANCE Act for deepfake victims
Last updated: 2026-06-07. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-07.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a forged digital likeness under Washington law?
Under SSB 5886, a forged digital likeness is an audio or visual representation that has been digitally created or altered to be indistinguishable from the genuine person, misrepresents that person's appearance, speech, or conduct, and is likely to deceive a reasonable person. It includes representations transmitted in real time.
When does Washington's deepfake law take effect?
SSB 5886 takes effect on June 11, 2026. Governor Bob Ferguson signed it on March 16, 2026, and it is Chapter 69 of the 2026 Laws of Washington.
Can you sue over an AI voice clone in Washington?
The Act adds a forged digital likeness to the Personality Rights Act (RCW 63.60), creating a civil claim. Whether a given clone is actionable depends on the facts and on whether an exemption, such as for newsworthy or public-interest use, applies. It is not legal advice for any specific case.
What damages does the law allow?
The Act raises the civil penalty to $3,000 and allows recovery of noneconomic damages, meaning reputational and emotional harm, when the infringement involves a forged digital likeness, even if the infringer made no profit.
Does the law cover deceased people?
Yes. Washington treats personality rights as property rights that survive death and can be transferred, and the noneconomic damages provision applies to a forged digital likeness of a living or deceased person.
How does SSB 5886 compare to federal deepfake law?
SSB 5886 is a state civil property-rights law. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, enacted in 2025, is a criminal and notice-and-removal law focused on nonconsensual intimate images, including deepfakes. They address overlapping conduct through different mechanisms.
Updates
Corrected a claim about RCW 63.60's exemptions: the statute does not contain a notice-and-takedown safe harbor for online platforms. It exempts media outlets from liability for content they publish or broadcast unless used to promote the outlet itself (RCW 63.60.070(4)).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 63.60.010Property right—Use of name, voice, signature, photograph, forged digital likeness, or likeness.In force
Every individual or personality has a property right in the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograph, forged digital likeness, or likeness. Such right exists in the name, voice, signature, photograph, forged digital likeness, or likeness of individuals or personalities deceased before, on, or after June 11, 1998. This right shall be freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by any otherwise permissible form of inter vivos or testamentary transfer, including without limitation a will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy with survivorship provisions or payable-on-death provisions, whether the will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy document is entered into or executed before, on, or after June 11, 1998, by the deceased individual or personality or by any subsequent owner of the deceased individual's or personality's rights as recognized by this chapter; or, if none is applicable, then the owner of the rights shall be determined under the laws of intestate succession applicable to interests in intangible personal property.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 23 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Geneva Langworthy, V. Kristina Pollard, Et Ano (Court of Appeals of Washington 2022)“…h” and sets forth remedies for infringement of that right. RCW 63.60.010, .060. Specifically, Langworthy argued…”
- Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2014, 762 F.3d 829)“…hird statute, Washington’s Personality Rights Act (“WPRA”), Wash. Rev.Code §§ 63.60.010-63.60.080, does not provide Experience…”
- Experience Hendrix LLC v. Hendrixlicensing.Com Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2014, 742 F.3d 377)“…hird statute, Washington’s Personality Rights Act (“WPRA”), Wash. Rev. Code §§ 63.60.010–63.60.080, does not provide Experience…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Leading cases:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- FINAL BILL REPORT SSB 5886, Chapter 69, 2026 Laws of Washington (signed Mar. 16, 2026; effective June 11, 2026; Senate 47-0, House 85-9)(leg.wa.gov).gov
- Substitute Senate Bill 5886, Certification of Enrollment (text passed by the Legislature), amending RCW 63.60.010, .020, .050, .060(leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 63.60, Washington Personality Rights Act (as amended by SSB 5886)(leg.wa.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146, 119th Congress (Pub. L. No. 119-12, 2025), federal criminal and notice-and-removal law for nonconsensual intimate images including deepfakes(congress.gov).gov
- Cooley LLP, Washington State Expands Personality Rights Law to Cover AI-Generated Deepfakes (analysis, corroborating)(cooley.com)